sigh You obviously have no idea how to debate.
Your first point must ALLWAYS contain the evidence it is based on, BEFORE moving on. For example;
"Pigs can fly, flying is achieved by the length of the wing being greater on the top, creating an area of low pressure, effectively sucking the plane into the sky."
The first 3 words, were not verified in any way.
If it is indeed "the map and not the territory" as you say. Then it is the arguers fault (arguers for the proposition).
You see; debating method (all academic debating methods) require the argument is taken in turns. And if the guy has not presented any evidence at the end of the first sentence, let alone after a 15 min and part 1 of the video. Then they are going to get torn a new one, by the other team (arguers against the proposition).
“You didn't cite any[fallacies].”
I said: “generalisations, using the words 'all conspiracy theorists'”
That counts as 1 fallacy (why did you miss that?), and in debating terms, he is now 1 point down. My argument, which contains no fallacies (and you haven’t found any yet). Is still at 0. Therefore not much more analysis is needed to know he is wrong.
“The video's creator's name should be capitalized. Also, she prefers to be addressed as Miss Shirley Representing the Point.” Wat… oh I see… what a robust argument… descending into criticizing spelling errors.
“Please read the material that is the background for many on this site if you are going to try to engage with the ideas here: Map and Territory, Words”
I might… but as of yet, your “map and territory” is looking mighty fallacious. I really REALLY doubt that you can vindicate it.
I’m seeing the shadow of flaws and fallacies, cast throughout this entire website, for 2 main reasons; no experience debating and actually testing the theory, and, very little experience using strict critical thinking. And above all else, TOO MANY PSYCHOLOGY THEORIES.
Psychology AND theory, bare no impact upon evidence based arguments. The evidence is either real or fake, true or false. It exists in a binary state of 1 or 0, it does not matter who is looking at it, or what state their mind is in, as evidence is independent of mind as it exists outside of it. (oh here come the thumbs-down due to biased psychologists)
You obviously have no idea how to debate. Your first point must ALLWAYS contain the evidence it is based on, BEFORE moving on. For example;
Appealing to "proper" debating technique is going to be counter-productive here. We're interested in getting the right answer. Debates as commonly practiced train you to write your conclusion before searching for the reasons, which is exactly backwards from what a responsible rationalist should do.
When a bunch of smart people disagree with you, sometimes it is because they are crazy; sometimes, because you are crazy. You should read much more of the sequences before calling us wrong so authoritatively.
Iksorod and I made a Google doc of intro-level training materials for rationality / critical thinking. We'll keep adding to it as we find more stuff. Please comment with your own additions.